Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

No problem.

Quoting: Desert Fox

You honestly believe so . . . Why?

Quoting: George B

I also was a pilot before I got so damned old, lol. But it's not that big of a deal in todays age of GPS navigation.

Quoting: Desert Fox

And as pilots we are aware of ground effect.. At that speed, flying low enough to break light poles off the freeway, he could push the column forward with his foot and not have much of a chance of hitting the face of the building.

Well that's an exaggeration.. But you get the point, any excess speed post flair leads to considerable floating etc....

Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

Thanks for your participation . . .

Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp7) No 25.6% (10)8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 17.9% (7)6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 15.4% (6)1) Yes 12.8% (5)2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 12.8% (5)4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 5.1% (2)9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 5.1% (2)10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 2.6% (1)11) I don't know 2.6% (1)3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 0% (0)5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 0% (0)Blank (View Results) (6)

Non-Blank Votes: 39

Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 473 - 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)

Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B

Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

Thanks for your participation . . .

Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp7) No 25.6% (10)8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 17.9% (7)6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 15.4% (6)1) Yes 12.8% (5)2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 12.8% (5)4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 5.1% (2)9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 5.1% (2)10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 2.6% (1)11) I don't know 2.6% (1)3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 0% (0)5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 0% (0)Blank (View Results) (6)

Non-Blank Votes: 39

Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 473 - 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)

Quoting: George B

To answer, yes it's total jet wash... They could not even be comfortable in a single engine during stall training.. Add all the factors the other poster said and also add the load factor on the AC and their own bodies and its a wrap.. No way for the pentagon IMO

"I know that the molecules in my body are traceable to phenomena in the cosmos. That makes me want to grab people on the street and say: 'Have you HEARD THIS?" -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

I voted 'Yes, it would be straightforward'...

Its been done in simulations (and not just Microsoft Flight Simulator) I have seen REAL pilots do it in 10 million dollar Boeing simulators. When I got a chance to use one of these simulators, even I was able to fly at full throttle under the span of golden gate-sized bridge (without crashing, to prove accuracy and control). We're talking 500 knots + in a DC-10! (Now I'm not a REAL pilot, I've just been flight simming for fun since childhood)

Here is a video of a Flight Simulator X recreation. Although the realism is debatable, one thing you may appreciate from the videos are the relative speeds, the approach and control of the aircraft... In these aspects, there is very little difference between FSX and a full blown 10 million dollar full cockpit simulator (I have seen and 'flown' both)

You will see that the most important aspect of hitting the target is the approach (whether the target is a runway when you're landing, or an enemy tank you're about to strafe in an A-10... Its all about approach)

Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

I voted 'Yes, it would be straightforward'...

Its been done in simulations (and not just Microsoft Flight Simulator) I have seen REAL pilots do it in 10 million dollar Boeing simulators. When I got a chance to use one of these simulators, even I was able to fly at full throttle under the span of golden gate-sized bridge (without crashing, to prove accuracy and control). We're talking 500 knots + in a DC-10! (Now I'm not a REAL pilot, I've just been flight simming for fun since childhood)

Here is a video of a Flight Simulator X recreation. Although the realism is debatable, one thing you may appreciate from the videos are the relative speeds, the approach and control of the aircraft... In these aspects, there is very little difference between FSX and a full blown 10 million dollar full cockpit simulator (I have seen and 'flown' both)

You will see that the most important aspect of hitting the target is the approach (whether the target is a runway when you're landing, or an enemy tank you're about to strafe in an A-10... Its all about approach)

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34432875

A simulator cannot simulate real atmospheric conditions . . . the limitations of the airframe and control surfaces near its maximum air speeds . . .

Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B

Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

I voted 'Yes, it would be straightforward'...

Its been done in simulations (and not just Microsoft Flight Simulator) I have seen REAL pilots do it in 10 million dollar Boeing simulators. When I got a chance to use one of these simulators, even I was able to fly at full throttle under the span of golden gate-sized bridge (without crashing, to prove accuracy and control). We're talking 500 knots + in a DC-10! (Now I'm not a REAL pilot, I've just been flight simming for fun since childhood)

Here is a video of a Flight Simulator X recreation. Although the realism is debatable, one thing you may appreciate from the videos are the relative speeds, the approach and control of the aircraft... In these aspects, there is very little difference between FSX and a full blown 10 million dollar full cockpit simulator (I have seen and 'flown' both)

You will see that the most important aspect of hitting the target is the approach (whether the target is a runway when you're landing, or an enemy tank you're about to strafe in an A-10... Its all about approach)

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34432875

A simulator cannot simulate real atmospheric conditions . . . the limitations of the airframe and control surfaces near its maximum air speeds . . .

going BOOGA BOOGA to scare the passengers into submission, and then murdering the pilots.

I won't even get into the hilarity of the boxcutter knife thing.

Okay. These guys just did the hijacking thing, they just slashed the throats of two pilots, blood squirting out all over the place, blood all over the cockpit, all over themselves, they're all pumped up, feeling the adrenaline rush, and now they have to sit down and figure out what all that newfangled glass cockpit stuff is all about.

They're transitioning from six steam gauges in a single engine 100 kt prop job, to a 21st century glass cockpit multi engine jet. In a matter of a few minutes. At 493kts. And they're covered in someone else's blood.

With their heart rates going at 150 beats per minute.

I don't think so.

Quoting: EscapeVelocity

You make some great assumptions, so let me make some.

The hijackers were trained on simulators for big jets, before coming here for some "real, live" training on small aircraft. They could have received this training in Saudi Arabia. Just coming here to get some real time experience. It can be very confusing, going backward from complex operations to simple ones.

The pilots were most probably removed from the cockpit then slaughtered by some of the other hijackers. so no blood, little adrenalin.

The aggressive banking turn could have been cause by the auto pilot being engaged, set for a new heading.

How do we know it was Box cutters? What is the proof? Any razor knife might be called a "box cutter".In the right hands it can be a deadly weapon.

Many times in History the "trained experts", have been proven wrong by someone without the knowledge to know it was "impossible".

going BOOGA BOOGA to scare the passengers into submission, and then murdering the pilots.

I won't even get into the hilarity of the boxcutter knife thing.

Okay. These guys just did the hijacking thing, they just slashed the throats of two pilots, blood squirting out all over the place, blood all over the cockpit, all over themselves, they're all pumped up, feeling the adrenaline rush, and now they have to sit down and figure out what all that newfangled glass cockpit stuff is all about.

They're transitioning from six steam gauges in a single engine 100 kt prop job, to a 21st century glass cockpit multi engine jet. In a matter of a few minutes. At 493kts. And they're covered in someone else's blood.

With their heart rates going at 150 beats per minute.

I don't think so.

Quoting: EscapeVelocity

You make some great assumptions, so let me make some.

The hijackers were trained on simulators for big jets, before coming here for some "real, live" training on small aircraft. They could have received this training in Saudi Arabia. Just coming here to get some real time experience. It can be very confusing, going backward from complex operations to simple ones.

The pilots were most probably removed from the cockpit then slaughtered by some of the other hijackers. so no blood, little adrenalin.

The aggressive banking turn could have been cause by the auto pilot being engaged, set for a new heading.

How do we know it was Box cutters? What is the proof? Any razor knife might be called a "box cutter".In the right hands it can be a deadly weapon.

Many times in History the "trained experts", have been proven wrong by someone without the knowledge to know it was "impossible".

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33832742

Reasonable points . . . so you are not surprised they could do it 3 for 3??

This is something like the formula that they say they calculated the speed would be in Mach equivalent air speed at 22,000 feet for an air speed at 2,000 feet . . .

"Mach 1 based on a standard day temperature at 22.000 feet = 609 knots true air speed.

.86 Mach = 522 knots

522 knots at 22,000 feet, in less dense air has the same effects as 369 knots at sea level in more dense air.

NOTE THE BIG DIFFERENCE OF AIR PRESSURE ACTING ON THE AIRFRAME.

Flight 175 reportedly reached the speed of 510 knots at sea level.

The max operating speed SET BY BOEING OF 360 KNOTS FOR LOWER ALTITUDES IS TOTALLY IGNORED. THEY ALSO IGNORED THE EFFECTS OF AIR DENSITY AT LOWER COMPARED TO HIGHER ALTITUDES AND THE REASON THAT BOEING HAS TWO DIFFERENT MVOs FOR DIFFERENT ALTITUDES.

Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

Pilots with the "skill level" of the alleged 9/11 hijackers couldn't even have turned that plane around to head back to towards the east without stalling it.

Let alone find Washington DC, and then performing a high speed diving turn that would have torn the aircraft apart.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33832742

That is what even some pilots believe . . .

Quoting: George B

I AM a pilot.

Not a 757 pilot, just a private pilot. 157 hours in Cessna 172s. (100 more hours than the "9/11 hijackers")

I couldn't fly a 757.

I probably couldn't even fly one in a straight line at altitude without stalling it, without using the autopilot. These planes have a very small flight envelope at cruising altitude (35,000 ft) and if you get out of that envelope (say, by dropping your speed too much in a turn) you can easily go into a stall. Then a wing drops, and you're in a spin.

And getting something like that out of a spin, for me, impossible. A death spiral, right into the ground.

Spin training in a Cessna 172

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33832742

I respectfully disagree. Airliners have wings that are designed for MASSIVE lift and engines with enormous power. You can throw an airliner around and maneuver hard, even a 747 (as you can see some of the videos below). I'm NOT a real pilot, I've just been flight simming since childhood... A 757 isn't that hard to fly, its easier than you might think. Holding a flight heading an altitude is fairly easy, all the main instruments are easy to read and assist greatly in holding heading and alt even for a rookie (the plane has a glass cockpit, but still has gauges as a backup).

Re: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

Thanks for your participation . . .

Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp7) No 27.4% (17)2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 17.7% (11)8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 16.1% (10)6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 14.5% (9)1) Yes 8.1% (5)9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 4.8% (3)4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 3.2% (2)10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 3.2% (2)3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 1.6% (1)5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 1.6% (1)11) I don't know 1.6% (1)Blank (View Results) (11)

Non-Blank Votes: 62

Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B